Legislature(2023 - 2024)GRUENBERG 120
03/28/2023 10:00 AM House FISHERIES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB95 | |
| Overview: the Authority and Management of Alaska's Fisheries | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 95 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
March 28, 2023
10:01 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Sarah Vance, Chair
Representative Kevin McCabe
Representative Ben Carpenter
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Louise Stutes
Representative Rebecca Himschoot
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative CJ McCormick
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 95
"An Act relating to designation of state water as outstanding
national resource water; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED HB 95 OUT OF COMMITTEE
OVERVIEW: THE AUTHORITY AND MANAGEMENT OF ALASKA'S FISHERIES
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 95
SHORT TITLE: NATL. RES. WATER NOMINATION/DESIGNATION
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) RAUSCHER
03/06/23 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/06/23 (H) FSH, RES
03/23/23 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
03/23/23 (H) Heard & Held
03/23/23 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
03/28/23 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
AARON BRAKEL, Inside Passage Waters Program Manager
Southeast Alaska Conservation Council
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided public testimony in support of HB
95.
MARIO BENASSI, representing self
Haines, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided public testimony in opposition to
HB 95.
REPRESENTATIVE GEORGE RAUSCHER
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As prime sponsor, spoke to HB 95.
ART NELSON, Executive Director
Alaska Board of Fisheries
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave a PowerPoint presentation, titled
"Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Alaska Board of Fisheries,
Process Overview."
DOUG VINCENT-LANG, Commissioner
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions from the committee.
ACTION NARRATIVE
10:01:00 AM
CHAIR SARAH VANCE called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 10:01 a.m. Representatives Vance,
McCabe, Johnson, Stutes, and Himschoot were present at the call
to order. Representative Carpenter arrived as the meeting was
in progress.
HB 95-NATL. RES. WATER NOMINATION/DESIGNATION
10:01:57 AM
CHAIR VANCE announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 95, "An Act relating to designation of state
water as outstanding national resource water; and providing for
an effective date."
CHAIR VANCE opened public testimony on HB 95.
10:02:31 AM
AARON BRACKEL, Inside Passage Waters Program Manager, Southeast
Alaska Conservation Council (SEACC), stated that SEACC is
Southeast Alaska's regional conservation organization, working
for 50 years to protect the clean water and the "natural bounty"
of the region. He expressed support for HB 95 and the
legislative political process for designating Outstanding
Natural Resource Waters (ONWR), as long as there is a
transparent, science-based process which incorporates public
participation and a clear timeline for decisions. He stated
that SEACC supports an administrative ONWR designation process
by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
with a specific deadline. He further suggested that SEACC would
support a yearly update from DEC on the progress of nominations.
10:05:47 AM
MARIO BENASSI, representing self, urged the committee not to
make the decision on the waters a political decision. He
expressed the opinion that DEC is licensing "polluters" in Tier
I and Tier II waters, and he argued it would do the same for the
unpolluted waters in Tier III. He continued that the decision
should be in the hands of the people with expertise rather than
making it a "political football to kick down the road." He said
any river in Alaska could be targeted by the extraction
industry; however, he argued that the rivers should remain
"sacred" as the Native communities have held them historically.
CHAIR VANCE, after ascertaining that there was no one else who
wished to testify, closed public testimony.
10:08:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT moved to adopt Amendment 1 to HB 95,
labeled, 33-LS0524\A.3, Bullard, 3/25/23, which read as follows:
Page 1, line 7:
Delete "only"
Insert "by the department or"
Page 1, line 9, following "by":
Insert "the department or by"
Page 1, following line 10:
Insert new material to read:
"(c) A person may request that the department
designate certain water of the state as outstanding
national resource water by submitting a nomination to
the department. The nomination must include
(1) a detailed description of the water;
(2) relevant water quality data to the
extent that it is available;
(3) the reason the water is being
nominated, including information on the water's
archaeological, cultural, scientific, or recreational
significance;
(4) whether the water is in or adjacent to
a park, monument, refuge, fish and game critical
habitat area, or other protected area;
(5) a summary of stakeholder and community
support for designation of the water as outstanding
national resource water; and
(6) other information supporting the
nomination.
(d) Within 60 days after receiving a nomination
under (c) of this section, the department shall
determine whether the nomination contains the required
information. If the department determines that a
nomination is incomplete, the department shall notify
the person who submitted the nomination in writing and
identify the information still required by the
department. A person notified under this subsection
may resubmit the nomination with the information
required by the department.
(e) If the department determines that a
nomination includes all information required under (c)
of this section, the department shall consider the
nomination complete. Once the department determines
that a nomination is complete, the department shall
(1) provide public notice of the nomination
within 60 days by
(A) posting notice of the determination on
the Alaska Online Public Notice System (AS 44.62.175);
(B) making a copy of the nomination
available on the department's Internet website; and
(C) providing a copy of the nomination and
the notice to adjacent landowners and the Department
of Natural Resources;
(2) provide at least 60, but not more than
120, days for public comment;
(3) hold at least one public hearing during
the public comment period; the department shall give
reasonable public notice of the time, date, and place
of each public hearing at least 30 days before the
hearing; and
(4) consult with the Department of Fish and
Game, federally recognized tribes in the area where
the water is located, and relevant federal land
managers.
(f) The department shall make a final decision
in writing of whether to designate water as
outstanding national resource water within 180 days
after the end of the public comment period under (e)
of this section. The department shall provide public
notice of the decision.
(g) When considering whether water shall be
designated as outstanding national resource water
under (f) of this section, the department shall
consider whether
(1) the water is habitat for fish or other
wildlife;
(2) the water has recreational value;
(3) endangered fish or other wildlife are
present in the water;
(4) the water or a portion of the water is
in or adjacent to a park, monument, refuge, fish and
game critical habitat area, or another protected area;
(5) the water is of exceptional quality;
(6) the water is of significant
archaeological, cultural, or scientific importance;
(7) the water provides special educational
opportunities;
(8) the water contains unique aquatic
habitat.
(h) A person aggrieved by a final decision of
the department under (f) of this section may, within
90 days after notice of the final decision, request an
adjudicatory hearing under AS 44.62.330 - 44.62.630.
* Sec. 2. AS 46.03.880(b) is amended to read:
(b) Notwithstanding AS 44.62.330(a)(25), except
for a hearing under AS 46.03.085(h), adjudicatory
hearing procedures to review permit decisions under
this chapter need not conform to AS 44.62.330 -
44.62.630 (Administrative Procedure Act)."
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE objected.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT explained that the amendment would do
three things: create the option for a DEC path as well as a
legislative path; lay out what a nominator would have to provide
in terms of science and rationale; and outline a clear process
for the department to follow. She argued that there are a
number of states which provide for a Tier III designation. She
stated that the amendment would allow the nominator to choose a
legislative or an administrative pathway. She expressed concern
that some people may have wanted to use a legislative pathway
but have not been able to. She pointed out that there has been
concern a legislative pathway could result in litigation;
however, she argued that either path could lead to litigation if
the process is not specific enough. She expressed the opinion
there should be two pathways to Tier III water usage, and the
process [to create a Tier III pathway] has taken too long.
10:12:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES reminded the committee of the previous
discussion which related that if a waterway is designated Tier
III through the legislative process, a proposal to change the
waterway from Tier III back to Tier II would have to go back
through the legislature. She questioned whether a DEC
determination would be treated similarly.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT responded that in other states with
only an administrative pathway, regulations are set for how to
designate and how to un-designate Tier III waterways.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE maintained his objection.
10:13:16 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Stutes and
Himschoot voted in favor of the adoption of Amendment 1 to HB
95, and Representatives McCabe, Vance, Carpenter, Johnson, and
Vance voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 1 failed by a vote
of 4 to 2.
10:15:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT moved Amendment 2, labeled 33-
LS0524\A.2, Bullard, 3/24/23, which read as follows:
Page 1, line 7:
Delete "only"
Insert "by the department or"
Page 1, line 9, following "by":
Insert "the department or by"
Page 1, following line 10:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(c) A person may request that the department
designate certain water of the state as outstanding
national resource water by submitting a nomination to
the department. The nomination must include
(1) a detailed description of the water;
(2) relevant water quality data to the
extent that it is available;
(3) the reason the water is being
nominated, including information on the water's
archaeological, cultural, scientific, or recreational
significance;
(4) whether the water is in or adjacent to
a park, monument, refuge, fish and game critical
habitat area, or other protected area;
(5) a summary of stakeholder and community
support for designation of the water as outstanding
national resource water; and
(6) other information supporting the
nomination."
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT stated Amendment 2 is shorter than
Amendment 3; however, it would essentially do the same thing by
allowing the DEC pathway. She added that Amendment 2 would
tighten the language.
10:15:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER commented that Amendment 2 appeared to
be a major departure from the intent of HB 95. He expressed the
opinion that this would require more discussion; therefore, at
this point he is not in support of the amendment.
10:17:01 AM
CHAIR VANCE asked Representative Himschoot to describe the
difference between Amendment 1 and Amendment 2.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT explained that basically the amendments
are the same; however, the section which outlines the process
for DEC is removed from Amendment 2. She added that it still
allows the choice of a legislative pathway or an administrative
pathway for an organization, entity, or a tribe, as well as
specifying the information a nominator would need to provide in
seeking the approval for a Tier III waterway, with DEC setting
the regulatory pathway.
10:19:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER pointed out that HB 95 would already
provide a process for someone to bring forward a nomination
through the legislature. He questioned the value of having two
different nomination processes.
10:19:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT explained that she came from an area
where waterways are important to the way of life, so she would
like the nominators to have the option of an administrative
process. In response to a follow-up question, she said in
theory DEC would follow the regulations which had been set forth
for each nomination.
10:20:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked whether the amendment would enable a
nominator to go to the legislature, if a nominator is rejected
by DEC.
10:21:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT replied that a nominator could choose
one and then choose the other. She clarified that these
petitions would not be concurrent.
10:21:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON expressed the belief that the stewardship
of the resources in the state belongs in the hands of the
legislature, as laid out in the state constitution. He voiced
opposition to the amendment.
10:22:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER said Alaska has a strong history of
legislative responsibility in the management of resources. The
legislature delegates resource management to various boards
comprised of citizens of the state. The amendment would be
delegating this responsibility to the executive branch, through
DEC, rather than management by the people. He argued that this
amendment would be a departure from how things have been done in
the past.
10:22:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE voiced his concern about various
departments being able to promulgate regulations without
statute, and the mandate is for the legislature, not the
departments, to manage resources. Having two pathways
inherently would make the process political, and he voiced
opposition to the amendment.
10:23:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE maintained his objection.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Stutes and
Himschoot voted in favor of the adoption of Amendment 2 to HB
95, and Representatives McCabe, Carpenter, Johnson, and Vance
voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 2 failed by a vote of 4
to 2.
10:24:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT withdrew Amendment 3.
CHAIR VANCE expressed concern about creating two nomination
processes. She compared the decisions involved in the Tier III
nominations to the legislature's role in designating park lands.
10:25:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GEORGE RAUSCHER, Alaska State Legislature, as
prime sponsor, spoke to HB 95. Responding to the concerns
voiced by some committee members, he expressed the belief that
the proposed legislation would make the Tier III process move
faster. Speaking to the concerns about politicizing the
process, he made the point that every four years there could be
a change in the administration; therefore, there would be a
change in commissioners and directors. He argued that this
would be more of a political system than the legislature,
because the committee process in the legislature involves in-
depth discussion, which creates a level of scrutiny from
legislators. He voiced the opinion that the legislators are
dedicated to the protection of wildlife, fisheries, and water,
adding that the legislators are elected by people with these
same values.
10:28:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES pointed out that moving through the
legislature is not always a rapid process. She reminded the
committee that a committee chair can stop the progress of a
bill, despite hopes for expediency.
10:29:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT thanked the committee for considering
the amendments.
10:29:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE moved to report HB 95 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, HB 95 was reported from the
House Special Committee on Fisheries.
10:30:17 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 10:30 a.m. to 10:32 a.m.
^OVERVIEW: The Authority and Management of Alaska's Fisheries
OVERVIEW: The Authority and Management of Alaska's Fisheries
10:32:54 AM
CHAIR VANCE announced the final order of business would be an
overview of the authority and management of Alaska's fisheries.
10:33:09 AM
ART NELSON, Executive Director, Alaska Board of Fisheries,
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), gave a PowerPoint
presentation, titled "Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Alaska
Board of Fisheries, Process Overview" [hard copy included in the
committee packet]. He explained that the presentation would
cover the function and formation of the Board of Fisheries, as
outlined on slide 2.
MR. NELSON moved to slide 3, which addressed the main function
of the Alaska Board of Fisheries ("board"). He described the
board as the third element of Alaska's fisheries management
model. He stated that board members are appointed by the
governor and confirmed by the legislature. These members
represent a broad array of fishing groups and other interests.
He explained that in resolving fishery disputes, the board takes
the politically charged issue of allocation away from fishery
managers and politicians. He advised that the separation of
allocation and conservation decisions is critical for achieving
sustainable fisheries in the state and elsewhere.
MR. NELSON continued to slide 4, which addressed the board's
composition. He stated that the Board of Fisheries is composed
of seven members appointed by the governor and subject to
confirmation by the legislature in joint session. He stated
that members must be residents of the state and appointed
without regard to political affiliation or geographical location
of residence. The governor is directed to make appointments
based on appointees' interest in public affairs, good judgment,
knowledge, and ability in the field of action of the board, and
with a view to providing diversity of interest and points of
view in the membership. He added that members are appointed for
a three-year term, beginning on July 1.
10:35:14 AM
MR. NELSON described how proposals are presented to the board.
He noted that there is a call for proposals for the next Board
of Fisheries meeting, and these proposals would be under
discussion for the following four to six months. He pointed out
the major steps in the proposal process on slide 5. This
included call for proposals, distribution of proposals, the
public review and comment process, board regulatory meetings,
and implementation.
10:36:25 AM
MR. NELSON, in response to a question from Chair Vance
concerning whether a decision by the Board of Fish or the Board
of Game could be reversed, expressed uncertainty and said that
he would follow up to the committee.
10:37:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE questioned whether seats on the board
should be designated as subsistence, sports, or commercial
seats. He expressed the opinion that a seat should be occupied
by a person relevant to the situation.
10:38:23 AM
MR. NELSON responded that this is within the purview of the
legislature. He then pointed out how situations are not always
clear cut, and people often cross back and forth between
commercial, sport, and subsistence.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE commented that, if a person is assigned to
a sport or commercial seat, the person should be expected to
support this fishery. He pointed out this has always been a
contentious issue.
10:41:04 AM
CHAIR VANCE acknowledged these concerns. She referenced the
statute pointed out by Mr. Nelson which relates that board
members should come from diverse backgrounds, professions, and
geographical areas but should still represent all Alaskans. She
pointed out that a good board member will bring diversity of
interests along with different points of view.
10:42:55 AM
MR. NELSON, moving to slide 6, addressed the board's 3-year
meeting cycle, pointing out the timeframe for different areas
and species.
10:43:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES questioned why meetings always seemed to
be held during fishing season. She questioned whether there has
been an attempt to set meeting times which work for the people
who are fishing and suggested the board reach out to the user
groups.
10:44:15 AM
MR. NELSON responded that the timing of meetings is very complex
and expressed difficulty finding a time which is good for
everyone; however, he stated that the board would continue to
look for the best solution.
10:45:30 AM
MR. NELSON provided the committee with information regarding
when the dates are set and how to access this information on the
website. He also encouraged everyone to take advantage of the
opportunity for public comment.
10:46:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asserted that the meeting times need to be
dependable. She said, for example, a meeting had been set in
Ketchikan but was moved to Anchorage, exempting two thirds of
the user group.
10:46:54 AM
CHAIR VANCE responded that a few years ago a meeting had been
shifted to Anchorage for budgetary reasons, and then she
referenced the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. She asked
whether these issues have been corrected.
10:47:22 AM
MR. NELSON agreed that the pandemic disrupted the meeting
schedules, but the meetings are now back on cycle. He offered
that he has been working to get meetings to the smaller
communities. He moved to slide 7, which outlined the proposal
process. He said the board typically receives 200 to 400
proposals a year, concerning everything from bag limits, season
dates, to overhauls of the fishery management plan. He stated
that proposals can be submitted online, by mail, or by fax.
MR. NELSON moved to slide 8, which showed the number of
proposals and where they originated, including individuals,
associations and companies, tribal governments and
organizations, ADF&G, the Division of Alaska Wildlife Troopers,
local fish and game advisory committees, and regional advisory
councils.
10:51:03 AM
MR. NELSON moved to slide 9, which addressed the board
regulatory meetings. He said the board holds 3 to 5 meetings a
year, with each meeting lasting from 2 to 14 days, totaling 25
to 40 meeting days a year. He pointed out on the slide the
typical agenda for board meetings, which includes introductions,
ethics disclosures, ADF&G staff reports, oral public
testimonies, deliberation on proposals, and miscellaneous
business.
10:52:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES questioned what happens during conflicts
of interest, such as when a person chooses not to disclose a
conflict, even if the conflict is commonly known.
MR NELSON, in response, explained the issue should be brought to
the attention of the board's chair, as the chair is the
designated ethics supervisor; furthermore, the chair's ruling is
made in consultation with a representative from the Department
of Law (DOL). He added that the chair's ruling could be
challenged by the entire board. He explained that the meetings
were open to the public except for executive sessions. He added
that the meetings are streamed live and recorded.
10:54:49 AM
MR NELSON, in response to Chair Vance, stated that how people
can contribute at the meetings would be addressed in a later
slide. In response to a follow-up question, explained that one
of the most common reasons the board would go into executive
session is for pending litigation or personnel matters. Before
the board goes into executive session, a motion is made giving a
general reason for the session, without giving details.
10:56:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked whether the board operates under
Robert's Rules of Order.
MR NELSON responded that the board generally follows Robert's
Rules of Order, but it would not confine itself to the letter.
10:58:00 AM
MR. NELSON moved to slide 10, which addressed proposal outcomes.
The slide displayed a summary of the board's actions on
proposals from meetings. He said about a third of the proposals
are adopted by the board as written or as amended. He proceeded
to slide 11, which addresses sources of public input, which
include: the general public, local governments, tribal groups,
village councils, fishery groups, industry groups, and local
fish and game advisory committees. He added that there are 84
of these fish and game advisory committees in the state.
10:59:54 AM
MR. NELSON, in response to a question from Chair Vance
concerning his role as director, expressed the desire to "keep
the train on the tracks," manage staff, keep the meetings
organized, and have an open transparent process for public
engagement. In response to a follow-up question, he explained
that the board has returned to in-person testimony. He stated
that the board would accept electronically submitted comments
ahead of time, and written comments can also be submitted while
the meeting is in progress.
11:02:40 AM
MR. NELSON moved to slide 12, which outlines the 84 local ADF&G
advisory committees. This includes 23 committees in Southeast,
18 committees in Southcentral, 12 committees in Southwest, 16
committees in the Interior, 9 committees in the Arctic, and 6
committees in Western Alaska. He mentioned that people
sometimes attend meetings for more than one region. He stated
that most advisory committees have between 9 to 15 members, with
meetings from 1 to 6 times a year.
11:04:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT questioned the funding for the board.
MR. NELSON explained that all the advisory committee
representatives are unpaid volunteers, with the state paying for
travel in some cases. In response to a follow-up question, he
stated that the paid travel would vary, depending on the
location of the advisory committee and the travel logistics. He
gave some examples from different communities.
11:06:54 AM
MR. NELSON, in response to a question from Chair Vance, stated
that meetings are held by teleconference. He emphasized the
importance of holding at least one in-person meeting each year.
He added that sometimes band width limits the ability of
communities to participate by teleconference.
11:07:30 AM
MR. NELSON, moving to slide 13, stated that the sources of
agency input are the commercial, sport, and subsistence
divisions of ADF&G, DOL, the Division of Alaska Wildlife
Troopers, and the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission. The
federal sources of agency input are the North Pacific Fishery
Management Council (NPFMC) and the Office of Subsistence
Management.
11:08:19 AM
MR. NELSON, moving to slide 14, addressed the board's legal and
policy considerations. He stated that the legal parameters the
board must abide by are the Alaska State Constitution, Alaska
Statutes, board regulations and policies, court rulings, and
international treaties. Concerning the "sustained yield"
principle, he pointed out a quote from the Alaska State
Constitution on slide 15, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Fish, forests, wildlife, grasslands, and all other
replenishable resources belonging to the State shall
be utilized, developed, and maintained on the
sustained yield principle, subject to preferences
among beneficial uses (Article 8, Section 4)
MR. NELSON observed that Alaskans are fortunate because the
authors of the state constitution included the sustained yield
principle, which supersedes other interests and has a unifying
effect. He also quoted Article 8, Section 2, of the
constitution, which specifies that Alaska resources be developed
for the maximum benefit of the people. He proceeded to slide 16
and slide 17, which addressed the Alaska Statutes. The slides
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Board of Fisheries Authority
(AS 16.05.221; AS 16.05.251)
"Conservation and Development"
Powers and Duties of the Commissioner
(AS 16.05.050)
Alaska Administrative Procedures Act
(AS 44.62)
Open Meetings Act (AS 44.62.310)
Executive Branch Ethics Act (AS 39.52)
Allocation Criteria (AS 16.05.251(e) and #91-129-FB),
including -
• history of each fishery
• number of participants
• importance for personal and family consumption
• availability of alternative resources
• importance in local, regional, and state
economy
• importance for providing recreational
opportunity
Management of Wild and Enhanced Stocks(AS 16.05.730)
State Subsistence Law (AS 16.05.258)
MR. NELSON moved to slide 18, which addressed subsistence uses.
He pointed out the specific steps taken to ensure priority is
given for subsistence harvest opportunity and the benchmarks for
reviewing the adequacy of regulations on a year-to-year basis.
He stated that amounts vary depending on the location and the
type of species. For example, some amounts are determined per
pound, some by number, and some by number of specific species.
11:13:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES commented that subsistence fishery seems
to be "after the fact" and question its regulation.
MR. NELSON responded that this would be a question for area
managers, as they have past seasonal experience.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES followed up with a question about personal
limits for subsistence.
11:14:50 AM
DOUG VINCENT-LANG, Commissioner, ADF&G, in response, explained
that subsistence regulations are different from sport and
personal-use regulations. Subsistence use is community based on
allowances made for community members to harvest for other
members of the community. Subsistence fishing is more typically
done with a fish wheel, beach seine, gillnet, and community
sharing, so an individual bag limit is not applicable. In
response to a follow-up comment concerning boxes of subsistence
fish leaving the state, he said it is illegal to sell
subsistence fish; however, the fish can be shared with other
individuals. He added that people can also take sport or
personal-use fish out of state. He advised that the board has
tried to set limits on how many subsistence fish can be sent out
of state.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG, in response to Chair Vance,
reiterated that Alaskans can share subsistence resources with
family members, and this includes those who are out of state.
He added that he has not heard very much discussion about
transport of subsistence fish out of state.
11:17:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE questioned the delay in subsistence data,
as compared with how quickly commercial and sports fish are
counted.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG alluded to the differences between
subsistence fishing and other fisheries, especially concerning
the community sharing aspect. He said that different methods of
counting subsistence catches have been tried, but these are very
costly programs. He added that community surveys seem to be
more successful.
11:19:38 AM
CHAIR VANCE asked whether dip netting is considered subsistence
fishing.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG responded that dip nets on the Yukon
River can be used for subsistence fishing, while on the Kasilof,
Kenai, and Copper Rivers dip nets are mostly for personal-use
fishing, although there is a portion of the Copper River which
has subsistence fishing. He added that personal use fishing has
different reporting requirements.
11:20:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER asked whether boxes of fish lined up at
the airport can be marked and identified as personal or
subsistence. He also questioned whether personal-use fish can
be shipped out of state.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG explained that an enforcement officer
could check to see if the person has a personal-use permit. A
person with subsistence-caught fish might not have a permit with
them, as the regulations are different. He said that personal-
use fish can be transported out of state, but most personal-use
fish are kept in state for food security and home pack. He
stated that these uses were observed by the Food Security Task
Force.
11:22:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked whether personal-use fish takes are
reported immediately.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG responded that these numbers are
reported after the fact; however, using a cell phone application
for reporting on the Kenai River is being explored. He added
this area has good cell phone coverage, while other places have
poor cell phone coverage. In response to a follow-up question,
he stated that the reporting of personal-use fish is mostly
post-season reporting, but it varies depending on the species.
He advised that if a permit holder fails to report, the
individual would be denied a license for the next year.
11:23:57 AM
CHAIR VANCE commented on her family's personal-use permit and
filling out the post card for reporting. She expressed interest
in the phone application.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES expressed the opinion that it would be
difficult to manage a fishery for sustainable yield using after-
the-fact reporting.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE questioned past discussions concerning
filling out guide reports on cell phones.
CHAIR VANCE responded that the discussions had regarded the
saltwater logbook program, which is very different. She asked
for an update concerning the personal-use cell phone
application.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG said that ADF&G does have a cell phone
application for reporting harvests, including big game; however,
not everyone has a cell phone, so ADF&G would need to provide
another mechanism for those who do not have cell phones for
reporting.
11:27:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER asked whether a date has been chosen
for using the application.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG responded that the application is in
progress, and user groups are being consulted with.
CHAIR VANCE, regarding subsistence concerns and the bycatch
issue, questioned NPFMC's interface with the Alaska Board of
Fisheries and ADF&G.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG responded that the board and NPFMC
have a joint protocol committee where some of the issues which
cross jurisdictions are tackled. He described some of these
common concerns. In response to a follow-up question concerning
bycatch, he stated that a bycatch task force was created by the
governor, and its work was completed last December. He
expressed the opinion that these matters are important enough to
warrant creating a subgroup of the board to keep current with
the issues. In response to a follow-up question, he explained
that the task force was advisory in nature, and he has looked to
it for advice on implementation and the recommendations.
11:32:06 AM
MR. NELSON, addressing the earlier question concerning
transporting subsistence fish out of state, explained that some
areas of the state do not have limits on subsistence fish. He
recommended that proposals be taken to the board with specific
concerns. He suggested that interested parties submit proposals
to local ADF&G staff. He advised that a proposal could be
accepted, but there may not be a budget or enforcement or
monitoring for it.
MR. NELSON continued the presentation with slide 19, which
addressed the board's regulations and policies. These include
Sustainable Salmon Fisheries Policy, in 5 AAC 39.222; Escapement
Goal Policy in 5 AAC 39.223; Mixed Stock Salmon Fisheries in 5
AAC 39.220 and #93-145-FB, and Emerging Fisheries in 5 AAC
39.210). He referred to the ADF&G website.
MR. NELSON moved to slide 20 and discussed the procedures for
out-of-cycle actions. He stated that the Board of Fisheries
Agenda Change Request Policy, under 5 AAC 39.999, allows for
out-of-cycle action for conservation purposes, correction of
errors, unforeseen effects, not predominantly allocative, and
coordination with federal agencies, programs, and laws. He
stated that the Joint Board Emergency Petition Policy, under 5
AAC 96.625(f), allows for out-of-cycle action for unforeseen
events threatening resources or unforeseen situations which
would preclude biologically allowable resource harvest. He
stated that the Subsistence Proposal Policy, under 5 AAC
96.615(a), allows for out-of-cycle action for fish and game
populations not previously considered and for an expedited
review, if required. Under 5 AAC 39.998, Category 2 measures in
BS/AI King/Tanner crab fishery allows for out-of-cycle action
for achieving consistency with the federal fisheries management
plan.
MR. NELSON continued to slide 21 and addressed ways for
interested parties to get involved. Some suggestions included
getting on the board's mailing list, submitting proposals or
submitting written comments on proposals, attending board
meetings and presenting testimony, joining or attending local
fish and game advisory committees, or joining an industry or
stakeholder group.
11:37:33 AM
MR. NELSON moved to slide 22, which reviewed some points for
individuals to consider when submitting proposals. The list
included to be respectful of the people and process, provide
facts to support opinions and new information, be objective, and
avoid adversarial debates. In conclusion he reminded the
committee that the board has a credible, structured process,
which involves a high level of public participation. He added
that the board members put in extensive time and hard work.
11:40:27 AM
CHAIR VANCE questioned the process of appointing someone to the
board.
MR. NELSON explained that the process begins with the individual
expressing interest to the governor and the Office of Boards and
Commissions. This will put the individual's name on the list to
be considered. He expressed the opinion that it is a good idea
for the individual to have others who support his/her candidacy
contact the governor, and then the governor's nominees are
presented to the legislature for confirmation.
11:42:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT commented that the Board of Fisheries
and the Board of Education has set regulations for the entire
state. Comparing the two boards, she complemented the Board of
Fisheries on its exceptional level of engagement.
11:42:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER questioned the public process based on
population centers. He reviewed the number of advisory
committees and the population distribution. He questioned why
there are fewer meetings in Anchorage compared to other places
in the state. He questioned whether analyses have been done
regarding population distribution versus board meeting
locations.
MR. NELSON responded that the advisory committees were
established by the joint boards. He explained that if people
are interested in changing the structure of the advisory boards,
they can submit proposals. He gave some examples of changes
which had been made in the past through this process. He
expressed readiness to make inquiries about this question. In
response to a follow-up question, he stated that he would be
able to have a response to the question quickly.
11:47:33 AM
CHAIR VANCE commented that many times ex officio members of the
legislature have sat on various boards. She asked whether this
is ever a consideration for the Board of Fisheries and the Board
of Game.
11:47:52 AM
MR. NELSON responded that state statute requires the
Commissioner of Fish and Game be an ex officio of the Board of
Fisheries. He expressed uncertainty concerning whether
legislators have served as ex officio members.
CHAIR VANCE reiterated Representative Carpenter's concern about
everyone having an equal voice in the public process. She
expressed the concern that everyone should feel they have an
equal opportunity to give input.
11:49:47 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Fisheries meeting was adjourned at 11:49
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 19 - Sponsor Statement version A.pdf |
HFSH 2/2/2023 10:00:00 AM HFSH 3/28/2023 10:00:00 AM HFSH 3/30/2023 10:00:00 AM HFSH 4/11/2023 10:00:00 AM |
HB 19 |
| HB 19 - v.A.PDF |
HFSH 2/2/2023 10:00:00 AM HFSH 3/28/2023 10:00:00 AM HFSH 3/30/2023 10:00:00 AM HFSH 4/11/2023 10:00:00 AM |
HB 19 |
| HB 19 - Sectional Analysis Version A.pdf |
HFSH 2/2/2023 10:00:00 AM HFSH 3/28/2023 10:00:00 AM HFSH 3/30/2023 10:00:00 AM HFSH 4/11/2023 10:00:00 AM |
HB 19 |
| HB 19 - Research USCG Documentation and Tonnage Brochure 1.25.23.pdf |
HFSH 2/2/2023 10:00:00 AM HFSH 3/28/2023 10:00:00 AM HFSH 3/30/2023 10:00:00 AM HFSH 4/11/2023 10:00:00 AM |
HB 19 |
| HB 19 - Research DMV Registration FAQ - CFEC June, 2019 1.25.23.pdf |
HFSH 2/2/2023 10:00:00 AM HFSH 3/28/2023 10:00:00 AM HFSH 3/30/2023 10:00:00 AM HFSH 4/11/2023 10:00:00 AM |
HB 19 |
| HB 19 - Research CFEC Vessesl License, Number Plate, and Decal 1.26.23.pdf |
HFSH 2/2/2023 10:00:00 AM HFSH 3/28/2023 10:00:00 AM HFSH 3/30/2023 10:00:00 AM HFSH 4/11/2023 10:00:00 AM |
HB 19 |
| HB 19 - Research CFEC Vessel Licensing Forms 1.26.23.pdf |
HFSH 2/2/2023 10:00:00 AM HFSH 3/28/2023 10:00:00 AM HFSH 3/30/2023 10:00:00 AM HFSH 4/11/2023 10:00:00 AM |
HB 19 |
| HB 19 - Research CFEC Public Database 1.25.23.pdf |
HFSH 2/2/2023 10:00:00 AM HFSH 3/28/2023 10:00:00 AM HFSH 3/30/2023 10:00:00 AM HFSH 4/11/2023 10:00:00 AM |
HB 19 |
| HB 19 - DOA Fiscal Note.pdf |
HFSH 2/2/2023 10:00:00 AM HFSH 3/28/2023 10:00:00 AM HFSH 3/30/2023 10:00:00 AM HFSH 4/11/2023 10:00:00 AM |
HB 19 |
| HB 19 - DNR Fiscal Note.pdf |
HFSH 2/2/2023 10:00:00 AM HFSH 3/28/2023 10:00:00 AM HFSH 3/30/2023 10:00:00 AM HFSH 4/11/2023 10:00:00 AM |
HB 19 |
| HB 19 - ADF&G Fiscal Note.pdf |
HFSH 2/2/2023 10:00:00 AM HFSH 3/28/2023 10:00:00 AM HFSH 3/30/2023 10:00:00 AM HFSH 4/11/2023 10:00:00 AM |
HB 19 |
| HFSH ADFG Board of Fish Overview 03.28.23.pdf |
HFSH 3/28/2023 10:00:00 AM |